• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

canon 10x42 vs swarovski 10x56 (2 Viewers)

Many thanks, I have narrow IPD, so canon will be suitable for me. From what I've read do you think that canon 10x42 has more 3D and sharper image compared to SLC 10x56?

Maybe on the IPD being suitable for you.

The Canon 10X42 has a large diameter eyecup. Depending on a person's facial structure and nose width, that can cause a fit problem for someone with a narrow IPD.

For purposes of comparison, the approximate outside edge diameter of the Canon eyecup is 45mm. This compares to approximately 41mm for a Swarovski 10X50 EL SV. Sorry, but I do not have any 56mm SLCs to compare but maybe someone else can supply a measurement.

You mentioned that the Cannon may be sharper than the SLC. I am not sure what that is based on. At the price points of these models, I suspect both will out resolve the vision of most. I do not recall reading about sharpness issues in general with the new EL or SLC models. Do you know your corrected vision?
 
The 3D effect with 155mm IPD is even more pronounced!! 65degrees AFOV is still quite claustrophobic, definitely not widefield. Interesting to hear the Canon pull ahead and Swaro hoping to add IS...

PEter
 
I would go with the SW (personal preference)
unless I had trouble holding a 10x steady

edj

I've no trouble holding things steady (previously carried a Docter 12x50BGA), but just like Kabsetz, now would only buy IS glass, it is such an improvement.

There is a financial benefit, the various new non IS offerings can be safely ignored. o:D
 
Henry,

I did mention that the objectives on the Canon are fixed and it was my intention to also say that on traditional binoculars that the objection spacing could vary. I should be more careful.

You are perfectly correct for 56mm roof objectives which is what is being discussed. However, I think the objective spacing on roofs generally reduce as the objective diameter reduces and my 8x42mm Nikon EDG set at an IPD of 69mm has an objective spacing of 69mm. Is the Abbe-Konig prism the only one that can accommodate the greater barrel diameter of the 56mm roof objective?

When I compare the difference between the spacing and IPD of the Nikon 8x32 SE and your Zeiss 8x56 which are 132mm/69mm and 85/69, the differences are 63mm and 16mm respectively . I can certainly see a pronounced 3D effect at a 63mm but I doubt if I could at 16mm. I wonder whether you can at this small increase.

Stan

Hi Stan,

I think 56mm is probably about the maximum objective size that could be accommodated by a Schmidt-Pechen prism with no off-set. I believe the the old 56mm SLCs had S-P prisms.

My comments about stereopsis were limited to just the two binoculars the OP is considering. The objective spacing of my 8x56 FL is 69mm at the minimum IPD of 56mm and 91mm at the maximum IPD of 76mm. I am assuming the 10x56 SLC is about the same, so it should have equal or greater stereopsis compared to the Canon at any IPD.

More generally, I actually prefer less stereopsis in binoculars to avoid excessive right and left field separation at close distances. I've been surprised to notice that I can easily detect the illusion of less magnification at close to moderate distances from the small objective off-set in binoculars with AK prisms.

Henry
 
Last edited:
Looks like Canon's AFOV spec is a calculation using the ISO method. Neither that method nor the 65º simple calculation takes distortion into account. Swaovski's spec appears to be an actual measurement of the "true" AFOV including distortion.

Without measuring it we can't know the "true" AFOV of the Canon, but since we know it has some pincushion distortion, it's reasonable to to assume a value somewhere close to the midpoint between 59.2º and 65º.
 
Depends how still you reckon you can hold the 12x as the stabilisation allows you pick out really small details as the view isn’t moving about.

Peter
 
Yes, I based the question on that concept--also aware that different non-IS 12x models, with differing weight and balance, will differ in stability in the hands of different users--but I am seeking reports of actual experience of "side-by-side" comparisons, in terms of seeing detail.
 
Hi Adhoc.

I think that you will find that if both are handheld, the Canon IS model will show far more detail. I didn't have a 12x Swarovski, but all of my Canon IS models run circles around my Swarovski 10x EL's and SLC's.

Doug.....
 
Last edited:
I've tried the Canon 10x42L IS WP several times, but the 16mm eye relief always turned out to be a deal breaker. Those who use prescription eyeglasses owe it to themselves to evaluate this aspect before buying. Near sighted folks will probably be more comfortable than far sighted ones.

Ed
 
Last edited:
As a Canon owner I'll throw in my 1 cents worth.

If you have a narrow IPD with a big nose or wear glasses when viewing try before you buy. Clearance can be tight.

The Canon performs optically slightly better with the IS off. If the IS were to fail it's not the end of the world.

Swarovski are sold by specialist dealers and it's hard to get a substantial discount. I tried and failed to buy a SLC 8x56 recently.
Canon on the other hand, is carried by places who sell washing machines and computers and here in England you can get great deals if you keep your eyes open !

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CANON-Bi...e=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649


I used to run an arbitrage business selling prestige German brands into the US in situations where the official US importers jacked the prices up to unrealistic levels.
 
Maybe on the IPD being suitable for you.
The Canon 10X42 has a large diameter eyecup. Depending on a person's facial structure and nose width, that can cause a fit problem for someone with a narrow IPD. For purposes of comparison, the approximate outside edge diameter of the Canon eyecup is 45mm. (...)
(...) If you have a narrow IPD with a big nose or wear glasses when viewing try before you buy. Clearance can be tight. (...)
Some weeks ago I tested the Canon 10x42 IS for myself and found it simply impossible to adjust those giant eyecups to my face. (Rather narrow IPD / strong nose - still looking extremely handsome ;)). Moreover, these eyecups are pretty sharp-edged and pinched painfully into the alar wings of my nose. We definitely are a bad match, the Canon 10x42 and me. It goes without saying that I wasn't interested in its optical performance anymore.
 
The SLC 56 will obviously be significantly brighter than any 42, if that's part of "wow" for you (it was for me). But you'd absolutely have to try an IS and non-IS bino yourself to decide between them. I have no experience with IS in a bino and haven't been curious, it just sounds like such a different experience aesthetically. (I bought my first serious digital camera with AF, IS etc a couple of years ago, and can't really say it's won me over yet.)

For purposes of comparison, the approximate outside edge diameter of the Canon eyecup is 45mm. This compares to approximately 41mm for a Swarovski 10X50 EL SV. Sorry, but I do not have any 56mm SLCs to compare but maybe someone else can supply a measurement.

My comments about stereopsis were limited to just the two binoculars the OP is considering. The objective spacing of my 8x56 FL is 69mm at the minimum IPD of 56mm and 91mm at the maximum IPD of 76mm. I am assuming the 10x56 SLC is about the same, so it should have equal or greater stereopsis compared to the Canon at any IPD.

SLC 10x56: eyecup outer diameter 40mm, about the same as the EL 50. Objective spacing at my IPD (about 67) is 12mm more than ocular spacing, a bit less than the FL 56.
 
Last edited:
Patudo (#26)

We are fortunate to own both. The IS won my wife over over on the first look at the night sky and became her only handheld. I wouldn't want to choose between them if held to one, as would probably pick the 8.5x42. They are both more or less specialty glass for us, low-light wildlife and astro.

As to sharpness, I have only compared once really, by placing both on tripods. Definitely, of our two examples the Swaro is the sharper. Not to say the Canon isn't superb...it is. IMHO, in practical use, the IS makes it an alpha competitor.

The 10x56 Swaro gives me a discernible advantage in low-light having spent considerable time comparing it to the Canon and others. Like its stable mate the 15x56, it gives fantastic daytime views and I prefer it to the 10x EL. For whatever reason, I can hold the big SLC more steadily than the EL--well enough to prefer using it to the Canon--my wife cannot. However, the IS feature of the Canon allows it to perform better in revealing detail in low-light than other 42mm, we have compared. It would be interesting to compare the Canon 10x42 next to some alpha type 50mms in low-light.

The Swaro 56mm SLC next to a Zeiss HT 54mm has a noticeably larger "sweet spot" for me and in practice, between the Canon and Swaro 10x56, do consider the edge differences a non-issue. But on paper, I'm sure that may be important...:)

fwiw...
 
Last edited:
The author (me) should update the review, since it is many years old and the binocular scene has somewhat evolved in the meantime. However, the Canon 10x42 L IS has also evolved a bit, and my overall conclusions have not changed fundamentally.

Some additional testing concerning hand-held vs. stabilised hand-held vs. tripod-mounted viewing can be found here:http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=297776
Here I have used a more recent sample of the Canon than in the original test report. However, the thread digresses a bit later on, as these threads tend to do.

Kimmo
 
I think I see why I just don't want to get interested in IS binos myself, regardless of how well they may work... not to mention digital zoom etc. Since cameras have become electronic and obsolescent, all my lifelong affection for classic optics that basically last forever has shifted over to binos, where there's no really compelling reason to modernize. I think I'd rather get a Habicht than an IS, just to thumb my nose at "progress".
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top